coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
9.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1968 respectively and live in Vienna.
10.  On 8 February 1996 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) convicted the first applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) of homosexual acts with adolescents and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years. Relying mainly on the first applicant's diary, in which he had made entries about his sexual encounters, the court found it established that between 1989 and 1994 the first applicant had had, in Austria and in a number of other countries, homosexual relations either by way of oral sex or masturbation with numerous persons between 14 and 18 years of age, whose identity could not be established.
11.  On 5 November 1996 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), upon the first applicant's plea of nullity, quashed the judgment regarding the offences committed abroad.
12.  On 29 January 1997 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court resumed the proceedings, which had been discontinued as far as the offences committed abroad were concerned, and found the first applicant guilty under Article 209 of the Criminal Code of the offences committed in Austria, sentencing him to eleven months' imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years.
13.  On 27 May 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant's plea of nullity in which he had complained that the application of Article 209 of the Criminal Code violated his right to respect for his private life and his right to non-discrimination and had suggested that the Supreme Court request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision.
14.  On 31 July 1997 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), upon the first applicant's appeal, reduced the sentence to eight months' imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years.
15.  On 21 February 1997 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court convicted the second applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code of homosexual acts with adolescents, and on one minor count of misappropriation. It sentenced him to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years. The Court found it established that on one occasion the second applicant had had oral sex with a 15-year-old.
16.  On 22 May 1997 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the second applicant's appeal on points of law, in which he had complained that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life and had suggested that the Court of Appeal request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision. It also dismissed his appeal against sentence. The decision was served on 3 July 1997.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to P.D.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 25 May 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 21 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 November 1992.
11.  On 2 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 11 January 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 February 1993.
13.  On 11 February 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
14.  Between 16 February 1993 and 12 May 1998, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  At the end of June 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.
9. The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.
10. In an indictment dated 22 December 1980, the Kırklareli Public Prosecutor charged the applicant, under Article 240 of the Criminal Code, with abuse of office by assisting and protecting smugglers.
11. On 23 February 1982 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant for abuse of office and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment and to a heavy fine. The applicant appealed. On 30 June 1982 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
12. The Tekirdağ Assize Court subsequently joined the applicant's case with another case of collective smuggling initiated against 13 co-accused.
13. On 12 December 1990 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant and the other co-accused for collective smuggling and sentenced the applicant to one year and eight months' imprisonment.  On 15 April 1992 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Tekirdağ Assize Court.
14. On 23 September 1992 the Head Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's petition for rectification of the Court of Cassation's judgment dated 15 April 1992.
15. On 5 November 1992 the Tekirdağ Assize Court admitted the applicant's request that his case be re-opened and initiated new proceedings. On 16 September 1993 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant confirming its former judgment of 12 December 1990.
16. The applicant appealed. On 5 October 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the Tekirdağ Assize Court's judgment of 16 September 1993.
17. On 7 December 1994 the Head Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's petition for rectification of its decision.
18. On 15 February 1995 the Tekirdağ Assize Court rejected the applicant's second petition that his case be re-opened.
8.  On 23 June 1994 the applicant's husband filed a divorce petition with the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
9.  On 26 August 1994 the applicant filed a pleading. On 19 October 1994 her husband requested the court to find that the applicant was responsible for the marital breakdown.
10.  On 1 September 1995 the court ordered the applicant's husband to pay 170 Polish zlotys (PLN) in family maintenance pending trial.
11.  The court held twelve hearings on the following dates: 26 August, 6 December 1994; 31 January, 21 March, 16 May, 1 September, 28 November 1995; 9 January, 13 February, 19 March, 17 April and 26 April 1996. It heard evidence from at least twelve witnesses.
12.  On 26 April 1996 the court granted a divorce decree. It considered that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. The court further vested custody rights over their minor child with the applicant and obliged her husband to pay maintenance for the child.
13.  On 28 May 1996 the applicant filed an appeal against the above judgment. She claimed that her husband had been exclusively responsible for the failure of their marriage and that, therefore, divorce was inadmissible in law.
14.  On 5 July 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Wałbrzych Regional Court.
15.  On 10 October 1996 the applicant filed a request for her maintenance claims to be secured. The court considered that further evidence regarding the financial situation of both parties should be obtained.
16.  On 13 November 1996 the court held a hearing. On 9 April 1997 the court amended its decision of 1 September 1995 concerning the family maintenance pending trial, increasing it to PLN 250. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's maintenance claims.
17.  On 6 June 1997 the Wałbrzych Regional Court ordered that evidence be obtained from experts in psychiatry, psychology and pedagogics. On 27 November 1997 experts from the Family Diagnostics Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny) prepared their report.
18.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 13 February, 16 March, 24 April 1998.
19.  On 15 May 1998 the Wałbrzych Regional Court pronounced divorce, finding that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage.
20.  On 16 June 1998 the applicant filed an appeal with the Wrocław Court of Appeal. On 5 August 1998 it upheld the contested judgment. On the same day the applicant applied to the court to grant her legal assistance and to exempt her from court fees in cassation proceedings. On 28 September 1998 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed her application.
21.  On 12 November 1998 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 5 August 1998. On 5 January 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held a hearing and on the same date it dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.
6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Rome, which they had let to G.R.
7.  In a registered letter of 15 October 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. The tenant told the applicants that he would not leave.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 February 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 23 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
10.  On 8 January 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 29 January 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1993.
12.  Between 25 February 1993 and 29 January 2000 the bailiff made thirty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 26 January 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.
9.  The applicant, Mr Rémi Bertuzzi, was born in 1951 and lives in Saint-Laurent (département of Vosges).
10.  He applied to the Metz tribunal de grande instance for legal aid to bring an action in damages against Mr T., a lawyer, for failing to represent him properly in court proceedings. He was granted full legal aid on 1 June 1995.
11.  Three lawyers were assigned in turn by the president of the bar council to represent the applicant under the legal-aid scheme, but they applied for permission to withdraw from the case, owing to personal links with the lawyer the applicant wished to sue. The last of them withdrew from the case in late October or early November 1995.
12.  On 23 November 1995 the applicant asked the president of the legal-aid office to assign a fourth lawyer. On 27 November 1995 he made a like request to the president of the bar council. The registry of the legal-aid office forwarded the applicant's letter to a lawyer who had been delegated by the bar council to the legal-aid office.
13.  On 12 December 1995 that lawyer wrote to the president of the bar council in Metz to request the appointment of a fourth lawyer. The latter took no immediate action on the request, other than to seek information about the nature of the applicant's case, which he was given.
14.  In the absence of a reply, the applicant wrote to the Minister of Justice on 14 June 1996. All he received in reply was a letter which arrived on 21 June 1996 informing him that his request had been transferred to the Director of the Civil Affairs Department. The applicant pointed this out in a letter to the minister dated 23 November 1996.
15.  In March 1997 the applicant received a reply from the president of the bar council informing him that the grant of legal aid dated 1 June 1995 had lapsed. Consequently, he was advised to make a fresh application if he wished to pursue his claim against Mr T. The applicant did not reply to that letter.
8.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Athens.
9.  Between 1 February 1961 and 31 May 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees for 4,246 working days. Between 1 May 1979 and 30 July 1981 he paid contributions to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press for twenty months and six days. Between 1 August 1981 and 9 May 1988 he paid contributions to the same fund for six years, eight months and three days. Then the applicant requested to be put on retirement under sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81. According to that law, persons who had contributed for at least five years to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press were entitled to a pension if they were made redundant out of no fault of their own or because of the introduction of new technology. Those who had contributed for five to ten years would receive a monthly pension of GRD 10,000. A higher amount was fixed for those who had contributed for more than ten years.
10.  On 5 August 1988 the Director of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press decided that the applicant was entitled to the pension provided for those who had worked for five to ten years.
11.  On 24 September 1988 the applicant appealed against this decision considering that, under the relevant legislation, the Fund should have also taken into consideration the working days in respect of which he had paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees. His appeal was rejected by the Board of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press sometime in 1988.
12.  On 12 November 1988 the applicant challenged this decision before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. On 15 December 1989 the court considered that sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81 were provisions of an exceptional nature. As a result, there was no room for applying the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds.
13.  On 18 July 1990 the applicant appealed against this decision.
14.  On 30 June 1992 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens allowed the applicant's appeal.
15.  On 8 June 1993 the Social Security Fund appealed in cassation.
16.  On 5 May 1997 the Council of State quashed the decision brought before it and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.
17.  On 10 December 1999 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens rejected the applicant's appeal. This judgment was notified to the applicant on 19 May 2000.
6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Pagani, which they had let to R.E.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 December 1983, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Nocera Inferiore Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 12 April 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Nocera Inferiore Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 July 1985.
9.  On 13 September 1985, 21 January 1988 and 11 January 1990, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 12 March 1990, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 April 1990.
11.  Between 6 April 1990 and 25 June 1990 the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 9 September 1999, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 October 1999.
13.  Between 6 October 1999 and 17 January 2000, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 17 January 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.
7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to E.F and then to his widow L.D'A.
8.  In a writ of 7 November 1981, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 May 1982. She asked the tenant to vacate the premises by that date and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 13 October 1983, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 May 1984.
10.  On 25 November 1983, E.F. opposed alleging the expiry of the lease on another date.
11.  By a decision of 23 November 1984, the Naples District Court rejected the appeal of E.F. and served him notice that the order for possession would be enforced on 17 May 1990.
12.  On 22 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 May 1990.
13.  Between 17 May 1990 and 15 December 1998, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession.
14.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  According to law no. 431/98, the Naples Magistrate suspended the eviction proceedings until 15 May 1999.
16.  On 1 June 1999, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 June 1999.
17.  Between 15 June 1999 and 16 November 1999, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession.
18.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
19.  On an unspecified date of 2001, the tenant died and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
5.  The applicant, Mrs Waleria Kroenitz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1903 and lives in Przemyśl, Poland.
6.  In 1948 the applicant’s property was expropriated. On 28 June 1996 the Minister of Economy (Minister Gospodarki) annulled the expropriation order.
7.  On 23 December 1996 the applicant brought a claim against a company “Domgos” (Częstochowskie Zakłady Metalowe “Domgos”) before the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking restitution of her property. The court held hearings on 30 May, 10 July and 17 October 1997.
8.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant modified her claim and filed an action for compensation for loss of profits caused by the prolonged impossibility of using her property.
9.  On 8 March 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court held a hearing and gave an interlocutory judgment. It ordered that the property be restored to the applicant.
10.  On 9 December 1999 the court was to hold a hearing, but an expert failed to appear because he had not been duly summoned. On 27 January 2000 and 23 March 2000 the court held further hearings.
11.  A hearing listed for 15 February 2001 was cancelled since the expert and the defendant failed to appear.
12.  The hearing listed for 29 March 2001 was adjourned as the court had ordered the expert to prepare a supplementary report. On 21 February 2002 the court held a hearing.
13.  On 8 March 2002 the Regional Court gave judgment and awarded the applicant compensation. Following the defendant’s appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).
14.  On 26 April 1998 the applicant asked the Minister of Economy to award her compensation. On 22 May 1998 the Minister dismissed her request.
15.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court an action for compensation against the State Treasury the Minister of Economy. The court held hearings on 19 November 1999 and 22 September 2000.
16.  On 22 September 2000 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
17.  On 24 January and 7 March 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held hearings. On the latter date the court gave judgment. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
8.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1953 respectively and live in Florence.
9.  Mrs B.P. was the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to M.D.S.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 21 November 1985, she informed him of her intention to terminate the lease expiring on 31 May 1986 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 9 December 1985, which was made enforceable on 11 October 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
12.  On 17 December 1986, the applicants became the owners of the apartment.
13.  On 8 November 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 27 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 January 1990.
15.  On 2 June 1990, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
16.  Between 23 January 1990 and 17 June 1996, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 4 September 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.